Now, before we get started, let’s get a few things clear. Number one, I don’t shill for candidates. I have my favorite candidate and you have yours. In this column, I will never tell you who to vote for. I will always tell you who I think is pond scum (like Mitt Commie, like former Obama syocphant Jon Huntsman, and last, and certainly least, Stormfront candidate Ron Paul), but I will never tell you who to vote for. (You’re an adult, I trust you’ll act accordingly.) Number two, I am fully aware that the Iowa Caucus is not that big of a deal. There’s no need to remind me of that. (If you don’t believe me, ask President Huckabee.)

The failure of Mitt Commie was mind boggling. Here was a guy with a campaign budget that was bigger than the GDP of El Salvador, who had been campaigning since John McLame’s whimpering defeat in 2008, and had a cable news station (FNC, aka the Fox Neocon Channel) in the tank for him, and has a super PAC to do his hatchet work for him…….and yet……..he barely beat Rick Santorum by 8 votes. Yep, you read that right, 8 measly votes. (It should be noted, that until very recently, Rick Santorum’s campaign was being ignored by everyone not named Mark Levin and had 68 cents and pocket lint to its name.) Even uglier for Mitt Commie was the fact that he was unable to drive a wooden stake into the heart of nemesis Newt Gingrich’s campaign. Despite being carpet bombed by Romney’s PAC operatives and Establishment hacks, Gingrich placed a respectable fourth and lived to fight another day. In other words—Mitt Commie choked.

Meanwhile, in Red Skull Ron Paul’s Fourth Reich, the Paultards are tickled Code Pinko.(Either that, or they’re stoned out of their minds yet again.) They think their Fuhrer has won a great victory over the “neocon bankster Zionist war mongers” by placing third. In actuality, this is a resounding, Stalingrad-like defeat for Herr Doktor. See, Iowa laws allow anyone to change their party affiliation at the door of any caucus and vote. So in theory, every liberaltarian, every Green, every 9/11 Truther, every Neo-Nazi, every malcontent, and every so-called “independent” in the state of Iowa could have showed up and dragged the Surrender Monkey’s carcass across the finish line. But they didn’t. Despite the “money bombs”, the “spamming”, the “trolling”, making pests of themselves on talk radio shows, and other Brownshirt-like behavior, RuPaul (H/T: Mark Levin) and his flunkies have failed and failed big time. Third place in a contest whose rules favor you is a complete and utter joke, much like saying Herr Doktor is a Conservative.

Let me repeat: No, I’m not shilling for anyone (as of yet, I’m still undecided) and yes, I know Iowa’s not that big of a deal. However, a win’s a win and I’ll take ‘em any way I can get ‘em. If you don’t win, you can’t keep it classy and say things like this:

There really is little to no difference between Ron Paul’s ideas on foreign policy and hatred of America’s military strength, and Barrack Hussein Obama’s – except for the fact that Ron Paul may be far more of a clueless lunatic than his Marxist counterpart. Especially in understanding radical Islam or of our allies who stand as the only bulwark against them in the Islamic nest of the Middle East.

Like the mainstream media who contorts or covers up facts in logic defying twists to support Obama, Ron Paul’s Mob Zombie True Believers, do the same thing for their political savior. They’ll even cover for Ron Paul’s blatant anti-Israel stance, and jump through hoops of absurdity and parsings to even declare that Ron Paul is a ‘Zionist” in response to the fact their messiah was not invited to appear at the Republican Jewish Coalition forum.

Daniel Greenfield notes the ridiculous attempt by The Atlantic to portray Ron Paul a friend of Israel, when his statements and actions illustrate him to be absolutely no different than Obama’s hostility towards our only ally in the Middle East.

More to the point, I wanted to link to this piece, so we can be reminded of Ron Paul’s absurd positions and statements regarding Israel, who he blames for the world’s woes only second to his blaming America first for radical Jihadists and the chaos now enveloping the globe.

Do you know who the latest Zionist on the block is? It’s the man who called Israel, “an aggressive, national socialist state” and suggested that the original World Trade Center bombing may have really been carried out by Israel.

…So how is he a Zionist? Ask Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic. According to him,Ron Paul is, “in one sense, a true Zionist, a believer in two core values of the Jewish liberation movement: Jewish independence and Jewish self-reliance.”

But not Israel itself. That’s clever double speak to cover for a man who repeatedly suggests that Israel is a bane to the United States. But it’s election time and Ron Paul, a career politician , vying for the Presidency for the third time under different parties, has to pander for votes beyond the unemployed college anarchists and Alex Jones/Lew Rockwell cultists who join with the Occupy crowds to tear down everything they hate about America.

The Mob Zombies of course insist their vaunted savior is simply against foreign aid, kind of the same way they insist he is against earmarks, but appropriates them on a regular basis. But as Greenfield points out – it’s not foreign aid to Israel that Ron Paul has issues with:

Ron Paul isn’t simply against foreign aid; he believes that the Israeli lobby controls Washington and involves American in foreign wars… and that this was among the causes of September 11. Paul has described the original World Trade Center bombing as a “retaliation” and during the Republican debates in 2007 and 2011 blamed American foreign policy for Al-Qaeda’s attacks.

… Ron Paul has insisted that we should have stayed out of WWII and let Nazi Germany and the USSR fight it out, and that by entering the war Churchill only prolonged it. Clearly this was another expression of Ron Paul’s Zionism and his desire to promote “Jewish independence and Jewish self-reliance.”

Ron Paul supporters will clamor that the above material comes from the Ron Paul Survival Report, which according to the Paul campaign was supposedly written for years by some mysterious stranger pretending to be Ron Paul. This unknown stranger discussed his time in Congress, his medical career and his wife Carol all in the first person.

Of course the mob zombies in the cult of Paul buy that ridiculous argument as if a fiery finger wrote them on stone. That the media will attempt to regurgitate this is their effort to continue to fraction the Conservative base and throw the general election back to Obama. A house divided cannot stand, and Ron Paul’s purpose seems to be to continue to divide the Conservative House, so that the Marxists continue in power.

Perhaps my greatest visceral dislike of Ron Paul, is that he gives aid and comfort to our enemies, while denouncing America and our allies in their presence – almost as readily as Obama does on foreign speaking engagements.

In an interview with Iranian television, Ron Paul complained that the president had not said anything to Israel about its horrible massacre, compared Gaza to a concentration camp, and made it rather clear that he sympathized with the terrorists. It wasn’t some unknown mysterious stranger signing Paul’s name to hateful screeds. It was the man himself doing an interview with the agents of a murderous regime responsible for the murders of numerous Americans.

“Bin Laden’s claims are straightforward. The U.S. defiles Islam with military bases on holy land in Saudi Arabia, its initiation of war against Iraq, with 12 years of persistent bombing, and its dollars and weapons being used against the Palestinians as the Palestinian territory shrinks and Israel’s occupation expands. There will be no peace in the world for the next 50 years or longer if we refuse to believe why those who are attacking us do it.”

If this was 1942 – Ron Paul’s absurd and infuriating appeasement comments would sound something like this:

“Tojo’s claims are straightforward. The U.S. defies Japan with military bases on islands in the Pacific, it’s initiation of aggression against Japan by stationing fighter squadrons on mainland China, and it’s dollars and weapons being used against Japan’s expansion of it’s territories. There will be no peace in the world for the next 50 years or longer if we refuse to believe why Japan attacked us on December 7, 1941.”

Ron Paul isn’t calling for impartiality or agitating for non-interventionism because he supports Jewish self-reliance, but because he believes that Israel is the source of our problems. He has made it clear over and over again that he blames Israel’s own war on terrorists for terrorism, just as he blames America’s war on terror for terrorism against America.

Paul’s hatred for the United States government has led him to make a common intellectual cause with Islamic terrorists. As far back as his Survival Report days, Paul had gotten in the habit of responding to Islamic violence with conspiracy theories. When Tehran was calling for Rushdie’s head on a plate, Paul wondered if “Some of the people hyping the Rushdie affair have other motives? For example to make Moslems look bad for geopolitical reasons?” (Ron Paul Survival Report – April 1989)

In January 2002, Paul wrote, “How can we forever fail to address the provocative nature of U.S. taxpayer money being used to suppress and kill Palestinians and ignore the affront to the Islamic people that our military presence on their holy land of Saudi Arabia causes.” In that same article he described the terrorists as “those who so passionately hate us that suicide becomes a just and noble cause in their effort to kill and terrorize us”.

In his book, “A Foreign Policy of Freedom,” Ron Paul insisted that, “all recent presidents have reiterated our obligation to bleed for Israel.” American soldiers have never bled for Israel, but language of this sort plays well with Paul’s base, and continues feeding the myth that America’s confrontation with Islamic terror is due to Israel, rather than Islam.

Occasionally Paul switches gears and points out that a cutoff in foreign aid would be good for Israel. That may well be the case. I believe that and so do quite a few people who support Israel. But this issue stands entirely apart from Paul’s larger “Blame Israel” worldview.

Ron Paul is not simply anti-foreign aid, he is anti-Israel. That is the country he has singled out for blame over and over again. And while he has every right to his opinion, conservative Jewish groups have a right not to give him a forum.